Delhi Court April 1977 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Century Traders Vs. Roshan Lal Duggar Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi250; 15(1979)DLT269
Prakash Narain, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of this court dismissing an application under Order 39, rules I and 2, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, moved by the appellant in Suit No. 381 of 1976, filed by it in this court claiming that the respondents herein were guilty of passing off their goods bearing the appellant's trade-mark and in consequence praying for the issue of a permanent injunction restraining respondents from using the trade mark of the appellant and holding that they arc liable to render accounts, pay damages and surrender all goods bearing the appellant's trade mark. Pending the disposal of the suit, the appellant prayed for issue of temporary injunction interms of its prayer for permanent injunction against the respondent.(2) The appellant manufactures and markets various textiles including voiles and mulls. Respondent No. 1 is also a manufacturer of textiles, including voiles and mulls. Respondent No...
Union of India Vs. Harbans Lal Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-1977
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi330; 1977RLR422
Prakash Narain, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of Execution First Appeal No. 1 of 1976 and L.P.A. 85 of 1976. The appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against an interim order made on July 27, 1976, by a learned Judge of this court in E.F.A. 1 of 1976. (2) Inasmuch as we have heard and are deciding the Execution First Appeal, the Letters Patent Appeal really becomes infructuous. The same is, accordingly, hereby dismissed. (3) The Execution First Appeal raises an important question of law as to the manner in which interest is to be calculated when either the District Judge or the High Court or even the Supreme Court enhances the compensation awarded by respectively the Land Acquisition Collector, the District Judge and the High Court in the case of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the Act. (4) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as stated hereafter. Land belonging to Harbans Lal Jain in Village Dhirpur, measuring...
Mohinder Singh Gill and anr. Vs. Chief Election Commissioner and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1977
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi265
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This is a petition under Article G 226 of the Constitution of India on behalf of Shri Mohinder Singh Gill, a Congress candidate from the '13-Ferozepore Parliamentary Constituency, Punjab' and Shri Nasib Singh, a voter and supporter of petitioner No. 1, for quashing the notification dated 22nd March, 1977, issued by the Election Commission of India, ordering the cancellation of poll held in the aforesaid Constituency and ordering the repoll in the entire aforesaid Parliamentary Constituency. A writ of mandamus is also prayed for directing the Chief Election Commissioner and Shri Gurbachan Singh, a Deputy Commissioner and Returning Officer, Ferozepore, (respondents 1 and 2 respectively) to declare the result of the election. In the alternative, it was prayed that writ of mandamus may be issued directing respondents No. 1 to act strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 64A(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), hereinafter referr...
Official Liquidator of Security and Finance P. Ltd. Vs. Pushpawati Pur ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1977
Reported in: [1978]48CompCas385(Delhi); 1977RLR391
H.L. Anand, J. (1) This judgment would dispose of certain questions of limitation arising in this application under section 446 of the Companies Act, 19.56. (for short, the Act), which are common to a large number of application under the aforesaid provision, as indeed under Sections 542 and 543 of the Act and Consideration of which was being postponed from time to time to await the outsome of a reference of some of these questions by a Division Bench of this Court to a larger Bench in 1974. Having regard to the pendency of the reference ordinarily the examination of the question would have been held over until the reference had been answered but such a course, to my mind, would be unnecessary, and perhaps unfair, in view of the fact that two recent decisions of the Supreme Court have made a qualitative change In the context in which the reference was made. (2) The Questions that arise are :- (a) Whether the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, the Act of 1963) governs the proceedings unde...
H.P. Shrivastava Vs. Ram Saroop
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1977
Reported in: 1978RLR274
Dalip K. Kapoor, J.(1) In the case, an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1959, was filed under the amended procedure introduced in 1976. The tenant made an application for leave to defend taking several grounds. Shri K. P. Verma, Ii Additional Rent Controller who decided this case refused leave to defend and passed an eviction order under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. The tenant has now come in revision under Section 25B(8),(2) It is necessary to point out that the Rent Controller decided this case on the merits taking into consideration the application for leave to defend, the counter affidavit filed by the landlord and certain documents on record. The procedure adopted by the Rent Controller seems to be contrary to law. What has to be taken into consideration in these cases is to find out if a triable issue arise in the case as held by the Supreme Court in Santosh Kumar v. Bhai Mool Singh, : [1958]1SCR1211 , and Milk trqm (India) Private Limited a...
Union of India Vs. Bharat Engineering Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-1977
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi57; 1977RLR499
T.P.S. Chawla, J.(1) A very fundamental question is raised in I his appeal. It has proved to be more difficult than I had originally imagined. The question is : Can there be an 'arbitration agreement' which reserves the right of reference to only one party Or, in other words, which only one party can involve The point has arisen in a somewhat curious way. (2) On 12th July 1972, a contract was signed between the President of India acting through the Northern Railway Administration (the 'Railway') and a firm known as M/s. Bharat Engineering Corporation (the 'contractor'). The contractor was to execute certain 'Earthwork' connected with the construction of bridges over a portion of the railway line between Pathankot and Joginder Nagar. Payment was to be made at the agreed rates. Disputes arose whilst the work was in progress. The Railway was not satisfied with the speed at which the work was being done. Ultimately, after issuing various notices, the Railway rescinded the contract on 11th ...
Ram NaraIn Khanna Vs. S. Ishar Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-1977
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi139; 1977RLR549
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This appeal has been placed before the Division Bench in view of order of reference to a larger bench dated 6th October, 1972, passed by T. P. S. Chawla, J., and raises a question as to the procedure the Controller ought to follow before passing order under section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). (2) The respondent-landlord instituted proceedings for eviction under the Act against the appellant, the tenant. One of the grounds on which eviction was sought was that the tenant was in arrears in the payment of the rent. The case of the respondent-landlord in the eviction application was that the construction of the premises in question was completed on 13-3-1964 and the appellant is the first tenant in the said premises and that the premises were let out on 27-4-1964. It was further averred that the tenant was irregular in paying the rent and he has not paid the rent regularly since 26-11-1967. After 26-11-1967, the appellant,...
Ram Avtar Vs. Municipal Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1977
Reported in: 1977RLR311
Prakash Narain, J. (1) Petitioner owned a shop by purchase and on 27.3.67 he made an application for permission to replace the roof and repair internal walls. On getting no reply, petitioner started repair. He than received a show cause notice which he replied on 24-4-67. When he did not get reply for some time he again started repairs He then received demolition notice dt. 2-6-67. After appeal was dismissed by District Judge, he moved High Court. High Court relying upon : AIR1965SC913 , allowed him to raise question of law for the first time. Paras 5 & 6 of the judgment are :- (2) In case there is breach of any of the obligations enumerated in the opening part of section 343 (I), the Commissioner can, in addition to any other action that may be taken under the Act, make an order directing that the concerned erection of work shall be demolished by the person at whose instance it may have been commenced or may be in any stage of completion. Such an order directing demolition is to provi...
Official Liquidator, Milan Chit Fund and Finance P. Ltd. Vs. Joginder ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1977
Reported in: [1978]48CompCas357(Delhi)
H.L. Anand, J.1. This judgment would dispose of certain preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of a composite application under Sections 538, 539, 542 and 543 of the Companies Act (for short, ' the Act') and as to the bar of limitation.2. Messrs. Milan Chit Fund & Finance Pvt. Ltd. (in liquidation) was incorporated on October 20, 1961. The company carried on business until the year 1965. In 1965 a petition for winding-up of the company was filed and a winding-up order was made on February 11, 1969. It appears that the records of the company had been in the custody of the police since before the date of the winding-up order. The records were recovered by the official liquidator from the police custody on March 17, 1971. According to the applicant, respondent No. 1 was the director of the company from its incorporation and continued to be so until it was ordered to be wound up. Respondent No. 2 was director-in-charge ofaccounts from August, 1962, till the date of the w...
R.C. Sharma and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1977
Reported in: ILR1978Delhi175
D.K. Kapur, J. (1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been moved by as many as 32 petitioners. Initially, there were six respondents, but later on by amendment a 7th respondent Shri R. N. Goswamy was added to the array of parties. The petitioners are all Language Teachers serving in various schools in Delhi under the Department of Education in the Union Territory of Delhi. The petition has set out the history of each one of the petitioners but, it is not necessary to reproduce the entire history of all the petitioners. The basic facts in each case can be summed up in a very few words. With a change of dates, the facts are common to all the petitioners. Each one of the petitioners was appointed as a Language Teacher in the scale of Rs. 100-250. There were at that time two categories of teachers teaching languages-one lot in the pay scale of Rs. 100-250 and another not in the pay scale of Rs. 120-300. There were thus two classes of Language Teachers. It also appears ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »